DIVORCE 21: No proofs were taken regarding the substance of the submitted property settlement.

January82019

Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce. The parties engaged in mediation, in an attempt to resolve their various disputes. Defendant received the assistance of an interpreter throughout mediation. According to the mediation status report, the case was to be set for trial because the parties could not settle.

At the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel advised the trial court that the matter had been settled and that counsel had prepared a proposed consent judgment which plaintiff had signed. Plaintiff’s counsel told the court that she expected defendant to sign the consent judgment prior to the hearing and thought that the only matter to address at the hearing would be the placing of statutory proofs on the record.

In reply, defense counsel stated that defendant wished to sign the agreement in front of the court but that English was not her first language and she had not yet been able to review the proposed consent judgment with the assistance of a translator.

Plaintiff’s counsel gave the impression that this review would be easily accomplished and that thereafter defendant would sign the consent judgment. However, at no time during the hearing did defendant testify or otherwise state that she had agreed to the terms of the proposed consent judgment.

The trial court took statutory proofs, but no proofs were taken as to the settlement itself. The court issued an Order Scheduling Date for Return of Judgment, directing that the parties either submit a consent judgment signed by both parties, or appear for a pretrial hearing on that date.

At some point during these events, defendant told her attorney that she no longer wished her to serve in that capacity and hired new counsel.

Despite the fact that no settlement documents had been signed by defendant and that there was a pretrial hearing set for March 29, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for entry of judgment to be heard on March 22, 2017.3 According to defendant’s then-attorney, she was very ill at the time and did not inform defendant of the motion, believing that defendant’s new counsel would be aware of it. However, because new counsel had not yet filed an appearance, he was not served with the motion. As a result, defendant never learned of the hearing and neither defendant nor her counsel appeared at the March 22, 2017 hearing.

At that hearing, the trial court signed the proffered judgment of divorce, which it now characterized as a default judgment despite the fact that no default had been entered, nor had plaintiff ever filed a motion for entry of default judgment.

Following the entry of judgment, defendant, represented by new counsel, promptly filed a motion to set aside, which was denied.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to set aside the default judgment of divorce. The appeals court concluded that entry of a default judgment in this divorce case was inconsistent with the court rules. No proofs were taken regarding the substance of the proffered property settlement at the February hearing, and defendant never signed the proposed consent judgment. They reversed and remanded.

At the Plymouth and Ann Arbor law firm of Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys have the skill and experience you need to address all family law issues that may arise during your divorce.

Defendant conveyed by quit claim deed the Property to herself and plaintiff as Joint Tenants with Full Rights of Survivorship and not as Tenants in Common. Defendant apparently took this action for purposes of estate planning.

Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of someone’s personal property by...

The arbitrator stated that the award document had not included any amount for case-evaluation sanctions and that, in fact, he had not even known the results of the case evaluation until after issuance of the awards.

If you’re contemplating a divorce in Michigan, you probably have a lot of questions. One of the most intimidating aspects of getting a divorce in Michigan or anywhere else is the idea of having to appear in court. The laws for getting a...

The age of an adult is not a proper ground for disqualification under EPIC. As adults, the children are fully qualified to serve as guardians and conservators for their father. Adulthood is all that is required under EPIC.

A prenuptial agreement is not only for the wealthy people in society, like Hollywood celebrities and the like but also for any couple that brings personal assets, property, debts or children from a former relationship into the marriage.
This...

Respondent argues that she was denied her right to due process of law because she did not receive notice of the hearing until five days before it took place. Respondent argues that the five-day notice of hearing violated her right to due process. Due process generally requires that notice be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the action and to provide them an opportunity to be heard.

MCL 700.7803 states that a trustee shall act as would a prudent person in dealing with the property of another, including following the standards of the Michigan prudent investor rule. If the trustee has special skills or is named trustee on the basis of representation of special skills or expertise, the trustee is under a duty to use those skills. MCL 700.7810 states that a trustee shall take reasonable steps to take control of and protect the trust property.

At issue in this case is whether Plaintiff satisfied the jurisdictional residency requirement contained in MCL 552.9(1), which provides that a judgment of divorce shall not be granted by a court in this state in an action for divorce unless the complainant or defendant has resided in this state for 180 days immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.

If you are on probation, it means you have the judge's trust and have been allowed some level of freedom. Now you must work on ensuring you don’t violate your probation. You will need to abide by every term that the criminal court judge...

On December 22, 2016, plaintiffs commenced an action to recover damages for the lost sale. They alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, silent fraud, entitlement to exemplary damages, and other claims.

In lieu of an answer, defendants filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), arguing essentially that plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims related to the Property because plaintiff’s legal interest in the Property was extinguished through properly conducted foreclosure proceedings and the redemption period had expired and that none of plaintiff’s claims had legal merit.

There are things that the police wouldn’t want people to know, and this is for the apparent reason that their investigations wouldn’t yield many convictions as they would like. The role of a police officer is to make arrests followed by...

Defendants’ counter-complaint sought a declaration, among other things, that defendants had acquired a legal right to use the Drive as a means to access their property. But defendants did not add the LLC, the owner of the Drive, as a party to their suit. Consequently, the trial court dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for easement rights because of the failure to join LLC—a necessary party.

With regard to defendant’s income, the trial court found that defendant earned an average of $15,300 per year from his drywall business and $120,000 per year from his medical marijuana grow operation during that same period.

An annulment officially erases a marriage. In Michigan, it is harder to get your marriage annulled than it is to get a divorce. The annulment procedure is very similar to the divorce process, and you need filing of the right documents and service...

CPS informed defendant that his repeated calls and complaints against the Plaintiff-mother, in which there was not a preponderance of evidence to support the complaint, are ‘counting against him’ at this point.

Appellants argue that because they provided medical evidence and appellee did not, the trial court was bound to grant their motion. But appellants cited no legal authority that medical testimony on behalf of the non-moving party is necessary.

At arbitration, plaintiff presented a counter claim and alleged that defendant had abandoned the contract, leaving significant portions of the commercial building uncompleted, and further, refused to return to complete the work or perform corrective work.

Estate planning is a task financial experts say you should never neglect. Despite this, according to a 2017 survey, 6 in 10 Americans don't have a will. While not doing any estate planning is the biggest mistake of all, here are three...

Plaintiff brought suit, alleging that the rezoning denial deprived it of its constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive due process. The parties filed competing motions for summary disposition. The briefs largely focused on whether defendant had treated the Property differently from other properties in the downtown area and whether it had legitimate reasons for doing so.

The trial court found that both the lease and the legal description of farmland attached to the Trust Agreement are defective because the Trust never owned the property, as evidenced by the quitclaim deed and its recording in April 1998.

The Child Custody Act of 1970, MCL 722.21 authorizes a trial court to issue custody and parenting-time orders that are in the child’s best interests. A showing of proper cause or change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting-time order. The movant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that either proper cause or a change of circumstances exists.

Divorce comes with confusion and mixed emotions. The question of who gets custody of pets may be even more confusing- especially since pets can begin to feel like family. Courts often look out for the interest of human children and allow for shared...

To receive involuntary mental health treatment under the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1001, a petitioner is required to establish that respondent has a mental illness and who as a result of that mental illness can reasonably be expected within the near future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure himself, herself, or another individual, and who has engaged in an act or acts or made significant threats that are substantially supportive of the expectation.

In October 2015, plaintiff began operating under his new company and filed an action for declaratory relief seeking to have the parties’ respective rights under the employment agreement clarified. Defendant filed a counter claim for damages and injunctive relief to protect Company R’s customer base.

Based on the testimony, the trial court ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the assets of the LLC. The trial court also directed the LLC to make a distribution to plaintiff, which represented the 49% share owed to him to compensate for defendant’s distribution.